What weight should DOE give to analyses conducted by regional transmission planning processes in the identification of constraint areas and designation of National Corridors?

What aspects of regional planning processes should be considered in assessing these analyses, such as the extent to which they are open to all parties and not overly influenced by a single interest group; are coordinated with state and load serving entities’ resource plans; consider wires and non-wires alternatives; consider access to distant future resources, such as wind and coal, and produce well-documented and transparent analyses?

In the absence of an established regional transmission planning process, how should regional, state, and local considerations be addressed in the identification of constraint areas and designation of National Corridors?

What additional complementary or supporting actions by DOE (or others) should be triggered by the identification of constraint areas or the designation of National Corridors? For example, should DOE foster federal/state teams to encourage development and expeditious reviews of proposals to mitigate congestion in constraint areas? Should priority be placed on designating corridors on federal lands under Section 368 that could be used for projects to relieve constraint areas?